Stupid firearm accident thread

[billeisele 122]

8 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

If you did not know, this is the "stupid firearm accident" thread. The one I started for a reason. Carry on though, don't mind me bothering you with little things like dead children. I know that philosophical arguments about the nuances of gun rights in America are far more important than the lives of a few children.

To clear the air, and repeat what I said earlier. Dead children or dead anyone is terrible. It would be nice if things like that never happened. I am not minimizing those deaths at all.

It would be equally nice if texting and driving didn't kill children every day. Or that drunk driving didn't kill innocent people. Or that all other forms of vehicle deaths didn't happen. I lost a good friend last week in a vehicle "accident." In 2018 there were 36,560 vehicle related deaths. Yet no one is screaming about banning cars or requiring mandatory speed control devices.

Same issue - address the cause not the inanimate object that only does what the human makes it do. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

3 minutes ago, billeisele said:

To clear the air, and repeat what I said earlier. Dead children or dead anyone is terrible. It would be nice if things like that never happened. I am not minimizing those deaths at all.

It would be equally nice if texting and driving didn't kill children every day. Or that drunk driving didn't kill innocent people. Or that all other forms of vehicle deaths didn't happen. I lost a good friend last week in a vehicle "accident." In 2018 there were 36,560 vehicle related deaths. Yet no one is screaming about banning cars or requiring mandatory speed control devices.

Same issue - address the cause not the inanimate object that only does what the human makes it do. 

Yes of course. Killing machines a just the same as automobiles. Except that one is designed to kill people and the other is designed for transportation. But yes, of course, exactly the same otherwise. Thoughts and prayers for your loss by the the way.

[billvon 2,384]

 

1 hour ago, billeisele said:

It would be equally nice if texting and driving didn't kill children every day. Or that drunk driving didn't kill innocent people. Or that all other forms of vehicle deaths didn't happen. I lost a good friend last week in a vehicle "accident." In 2018 there were 36,560 vehicle related deaths. Yet no one is screaming about banning cars or requiring mandatory speed control devices.

Actually people do scream about car deaths.  (Have you ever been to a MADD meeting or a community meeting over a new highway in town?)

But to your point - death tolls are indeed similar, and dead is dead.  So let's treat them similarly.  You make an excellent argument there.

All gun owners have to register their guns if they take them off their property.  Just like cars.  They must have a license to use them, just as with cars.  They must carry insurance if they carry them into any public areas, just as with cars.  The insurance company can decide how much to charge you based on your past history, training classes, mental health eval and the like.  Special discounts for people who submit their mental health assessment!

Cars have several mandatory features to reduce deaths.  Let's add them to guns, just as we add them to cars.  A biometric sensor to ensure that only the owner can use the gun.  A remotely readable RFID so police can quickly determine where they are.  Most gun owners claim that their guns aren't used for killing. So give them vision systems that will not allow them to be used against people.  Unless you override that, of course - as long as you have the right license for that.  Different licenses for different weapons, just as we have different licenses for different vehicles.

And of course we have strict limitations on where cars can go.  No cars inside airports, schools, courtrooms, stores or the like!  Have storage areas for guns outside those places, just as we have parking lots outside of those places for cars.

As you have said, people screamed about car deaths.  One of the reasons they are screaming less is because of the regulation around vehicles, regulation that has greatly decreased automobile deaths.  As you say the two are very similar - so it will work with guns, too.   I support your efforts to treat them similarly.

[jakee 1,254]

3 hours ago, billeisele said:

Joe - The stats on gun ownership vary from 270 - 400 million. No doubt it's hard to know the real number. A Pew Research Center study shows 40% of individuals either own a gun or live in a home with a gun.

Bill, what's the population of the USA?

[kallend 1,621]

6 hours ago, gowlerk said:

https://www.wave3.com/2020/12/13/year-old-shot-killed-south-louisville-identified/

Friends shooting friends...

My wife's cousin was shot dead in a hunting accident in Missouri in 2018.  He was a very experienced hunter.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

My wife's cousin was shot dead in a hunting accident in Missouri in 2018.  He was a very experienced hunter.

May I assume he wasn't wearing any of the available online, and reasonably priced, bullet protection attire? Sure, kevlar helmets and vests are still a bit clunky but when it's your safety in a world of flying bullets (not hunting, I mean concerts) you should take reasonable precautions. And screw the fashion police, it'll happen eventually that nanotechnology will allow for very stylish creations by the best designers. So, if you're the sort of safety nerd that looks both ways before crossing the highway then you should also think to don your kevlar codpiece if your trip to the 7-11 might occasion an encounter with some Proud Boys. That just makes sense. As anyone capable of believing what they want can tell you, guns don't kill people, thin jock straps do.

 

 

 

 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

I'm not in the no-gun control crowd or the cut benefits group. But I do believe that law-abiding responsible citizens should have access to firearms.

Yes there should be changes. One suggested earlier is mandatory firearms training before a firearm can be purchased. In South Carolina if you hunt and were born after June 30, 1979 you are required to take a Hunter Education Course. It takes a few hours and is not easy. No reason not to require something similar for pistols and other guns.

Not sure about nation-wide but in SC funding for mental health assistance dropped significantly 30+ years ago and the mental hospital was closed. I don't remember why but there was some change in the law that shifted that responsibility but it was never properly addressed. It's a much needed service.

I get it that this is the Stupid Accident thread. However, here is an instance of common ground that might yield something. I also do not want my guns confiscated and I also am not in the no gun control crowd. Obviously, the degrees of control and the reasons will remain contentious but when the topic is guns in America any agreements between the sides warrant a touch of the pause button, methinks. So I'll ask: where would you draw the lines? Brent wants free access to suppressors etc. I think not. I also see no reason to sell guns that look like they were designed to kill people in modern warfare. I say no to open carry but agree that reasonably controlled concealed carry should be allowed. Where are you?

 

 

 

 

[olofscience 420]

8 hours ago, billeisele said:

Yet no one is screaming about banning cars or requiring mandatory speed control devices.

And god forbid that Big Brother makes it a requirement to have training and a license to drive a vehicle, or to make registration of vehicles driven on roads to be mandatory. /s

[kallend 1,621]

2 hours ago, olofscience said:

And god forbid that Big Brother makes it a requirement to have training and a license to drive a vehicle, or to make registration of vehicles driven on roads to be mandatory. /s

Indeed - and after that they will be mandating things like speed limits, put up lights that control passage at intersections, ask you only to drive on one side of a line down the center of a road, insist that your car has working brakes, and lights if you drive at night. It will be the end of freedom. 

[kallend 1,621]

3 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

May I assume he wasn't wearing any of the available online, and reasonably priced, bullet protection attire? Sure, kevlar helmets and vests are still a bit clunky but when it's your safety in a world of flying bullets (not hunting, I mean concerts) you should take reasonable precautions. And screw the fashion police, it'll happen eventually that nanotechnology will allow for very stylish creations by the best designers. So, if you're the sort of safety nerd that looks both ways before crossing the highway then you should also think to don your kevlar codpiece if your trip to the 7-11 might occasion an encounter with some Proud Boys. That just makes sense. As anyone capable of believing what they want can tell you, guns don't kill people, thin jock straps do.

 

 

 

 

I have no idea what he was wearing.  Just that he's dead, shot at close range.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

3 minutes ago, kallend said:

I have no idea what he was wearing.  Just that he's dead, shot at close range.

The sad reality is that now that hunting is a sport with defined playing fields that hold prescribed numbers of participants  it is as unavoidable that players will be injured and killed as it is that the target number of animals will be harvested or mortally wounded and left unfound. 

[billeisele 122]

2 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

I get it that this is the Stupid Accident thread. However, here is an instance of common ground that might yield something. I also do not want my guns confiscated and I also am not in the no gun control crowd. Obviously, the degrees of control and the reasons will remain contentious but when the topic is guns in America any agreements between the sides warrant a touch of the pause button, methinks. So I'll ask: where would you draw the lines? Brent wants free access to suppressors etc. I think not. I also see no reason to sell guns that look like they were designed to kill people in modern warfare. I say no to open carry but agree that reasonably controlled concealed carry should be allowed. Where are you?

There is always common ground. 

Suppressors - aren't they Class three items? They require the $200 fee, fingerprints, a "passport" type photo and background check. FBI stats say they are rarely used in crimes. That seems reasonable.

Scary black military looking guns - I'm OK with this. Remove the scary black stuff and the lethal nature isn't changed. A PS90 isn't one of the typical scary ones yet a 50-round mag is standard. The 5.7 has a 21-round mag and there is an after market mag that holds 31, yet it looks like a standard handgun. Heck, the common Ruger 10-22 has mags available that hold 50. There are aftermarket products that mount two of them to make it into a "gatling" gun type thing with a rotary wheel operating the triggers. That product is also available for AR's. There are quite a few standard semi-auto hunting rifles that are just as lethal as the scary looking ones. A 12-guage with 00 will do the job equally well but from a closer range. Some of this stuff probably should be restricted or eliminated. The challenge on this is where the line drawn.

Open carry is a unique problem. Not sure that the problem it solves is more valuable than the problem it creates. I'd say no.

Concealed carry with robust training is reasonable. What I disagree with is similar to a drivers license. Once you have the training the permit is valid as long as you pay the renewal fee on time. I'd support recertification at certain time periods, or ages or something. One issue I have with the certification classes it that one can show up with no prior gun knowledge or even touched a gun. After 6 or so hours one will be certified to carry. Simply pass a written test and qualify on the range. I was shocked to see the range requirements. I don't see how anyone could fail. They can do the range work with a .22 then carry a .45. To me that's scary. It's impossible to have any degree of sufficient competency in that short period of time. As a comparison, to get a basic inland boat captain license, typically called a six-pack license, one must have 360 days of experience on the water with 90 in the last three years. That allows one to provide sight seeing or fishing charters of up to 6 people. It's intended to increase safety. Seems that something similar could be done for concealed carry.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

6 minutes ago, billeisele said:

There is always common ground. 

Suppressors - aren't they Class three items? They require the $200 fee, fingerprints, a "passport" type photo and background check. FBI stats say they are rarely used in crimes. That seems reasonable.

Scary black military looking guns - I'm OK with this. Remove the scary black stuff and the lethal nature isn't changed. A PS90 isn't one of the typical scary ones yet a 50-round mag is standard. The 5.7 has a 21-round mag and there is an after market mag that holds 31, yet it looks like a standard handgun. Heck, the common Ruger 10-22 has mags available that hold 50. There are aftermarket products that mount two of them to make it into a "gatling" gun type thing with a rotary wheel operating the triggers. That product is also available for AR's. There are quite a few standard semi-auto hunting rifles that are just as lethal as the scary looking ones. A 12-guage with 00 will do the job equally well but from a closer range. Some of this stuff probably should be restricted or eliminated. The challenge on this is where the line drawn.

Open carry is a unique problem. Not sure that the problem it solves is more valuable than the problem it creates. I'd say no.

Concealed carry with robust training is reasonable. What I disagree with is similar to a drivers license. Once you have the training the permit is valid as long as you pay the renewal fee on time. I'd support recertification at certain time periods, or ages or something. One issue I have with the certification classes it that one can show up with no prior gun knowledge or even touched a gun. After 6 or so hours one will be certified to carry. Simply pass a written test and qualify on the range. I was shocked to see the range requirements. I don't see how anyone could fail. They can do the range work with a .22 then carry a .45. To me that's scary. It's impossible to have any degree of sufficient competency in that short period of time. As a comparison, to get a basic inland boat captain license, typically called a six-pack license, one must have 360 days of experience on the water with 90 in the last three years. That allows one to provide sight seeing or fishing charters of up to 6 people. It's intended to increase safety. Seems that something similar could be done for concealed carry.

I'm with you on open carry and concealed carry. Large capacity clips might be solved with permits and controls. I am opposed to using semi automatic rifles for game animals; a poorly aimed first shot is rarely followed by a properly aimed second. For birds I'm good with semi-auto shotguns. I think anyone who converts guns to automatic or some form with bump stocks, rotary gizmos etc. should be guilty of a federal crime that is enforced. If guy's like Brent who has lot's of real training, experience and range time wants to shoot AR's at tin pots at the club who cares? But they shouldn't be allowed in the public square where the only purpose is to prove that armed speech is superior to unarmed speech. Also, I might be more relaxed if they weren't scary black instead of hot pink and banana yellow.

[gowlerk 1,903]

4 hours ago, JoeWeber said:

Also, I might be more relaxed if they weren't scary black instead of hot pink and banana yellow.

Why are white people always so frightened of the colour black? 

[JoeWeber 2,294]

2 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Why are white people always so frightened of the colour black? 

If you are into otherism it's the polar opposite, I guess. Maybe if you guy's, and I'm not blaming Canada even if it appears to be obvious, would send down some multicolored snow with the next polar vortex attitudes would change. 

[gowlerk 1,903]

38 minutes ago, JoeWeber said:

Maybe if you guy's, and I'm not blaming Canada even if it appears to be obvious, would send down some multicolored snow with the next polar vortex attitudes would change. 

We only send clear cold air in the vortex. The moisture comes up from the south.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 12/18/2020 at 8:49 PM, billeisele said:

But I do believe that law-abiding responsible citizens should have access to firearms.

Do you believe that, or do you believe they should be bale to carry them with them pretty much everywhere? Those are two different things.

In Canada law abiding citizens have access to firearms. In most countries law abiding citizens have access to firearms. Yet somehow I have a feeling that you don't like how most other countries deal with firearms.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

4 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Do you believe that, or do you believe they should be bale to carry them with them pretty much everywhere? Those are two different things.

In Canada law abiding citizens have access to firearms. In most countries law abiding citizens have access to firearms. Yet somehow I have a feeling that you don't like how most other countries deal with firearms.

He answered that sufficiently a few posts above, I thought. He's willing to forgo open carry as unnecessary and accept concealed carry with robust controls. Accepting that gun ownership isn't going away, what's not to like about that? 

 

[BIGUN 1,050]

34 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

In Canada law abiding citizens have access to firearms. In most countries law abiding citizens have access to firearms. Yet somehow I have a feeling that you don't like how most other countries deal with firearms.

The main sticking point other countries seem to not get is that we have a US Constitution that provides a "right" that shall not be infringed versus a "privilege" like driving a car.

Before you dogpile, please remember the post from about three years back. I'm not arguing gun ownership/licensing in this thread, I'm explaining where the difference lies.   

[gowlerk 1,903]

29 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The main sticking point other countries seem to not get is that we have a US Constitution that provides a "right" that shall not be infringed versus a "privilege" like driving a car.

It is true. The main reason America has such an absurd problem with arms is that it has an absurdly interpreted clause in its constitution. And neither the clause, nor the interpretation is likely to change until another revolution comes along.

[wmw999 2,116]

13 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

It is true. The main reason America has such an absurd problem with arms is that it has an absurdly interpreted clause in its constitution. And neither the clause, nor the interpretation is likely to change until another revolution comes along.

That interpretation of rights as being something inherent, not granted, is pretty key. It applies to all of them, not just the right to bear arms. If you think of the Constitution in part as the rules of a game, somewhat arbitrary, but nevertheless the rules, then it starts to fit.

Yes, I think the rules should be interpreted differently. The role of firearms is more problematic the more crowded we become, and the more that "infringes" on the right as it has morphed over the last 50 years (and it has), the more people push back, and make those halcyon uncrowded days what they yearn for. Along with the ones where one could be a subsistence farmer, and where men (generally white men) were pretty much in charge. A lot of those have changed. The people who yearn for them personally are getting older (how many millenials preferred to spend all day outdoors in the summer instead of in the A/C with their video games?)

Wendy P.

[JoeWeber 2,294]

52 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

The main sticking point other countries seem to not get is that we have a US Constitution that provides a "right" that shall not be infringed versus a "privilege" like driving a car.

Before you dogpile, please remember the post from about three years back. I'm not arguing gun ownership/licensing in this thread, I'm explaining where the difference lies.   

I'm to blame for the thread drift here. The bottom line is that no matter what I think about Heller we now have an individual right to keep and bear arms in America. Bill gave indications he's a bit centrist; I wanted to develop that because I think that's where most gun rights supporters really are. Sorry for the hijack.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The main sticking point other countries seem to not get is that we have a US Constitution that provides a "right" that shall not be infringed versus a "privilege" like driving a car.

Before you dogpile, please remember the post from about three years back. I'm not arguing gun ownership/licensing in this thread, I'm explaining where the difference lies.   

Not disputing that. he said he believed law abiding citizens should have access to firearms. What he really meant was law abiding citizens should be able to carry firearms in public. Those are two different things.

[billvon 2,384]

1 hour ago, BIGUN said:

The main sticking point other countries seem to not get is that we have a US Constitution that provides a "right" that shall not be infringed versus a "privilege" like driving a car.

I agree.  Which is one reason I think the comparison between them just doesn't work.  I think some gun rights advocates use it because they look around and see lots of cars, and almost everyone has one - so they think "guns should be like that."

[billeisele 122]

23 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

Not disputing that. he said he believed law abiding citizens should have access to firearms. What he really meant was law abiding citizens should be able to carry firearms in public. Those are two different things.

Just to be clear, and as Joe clearly stated my views earlier. I believe in concealed carry but believe that the requirements for a permit should be more rigorous. I don't see the need for open carry. Open carry, I believe, does deter some crime but it certainly scares enough folks that maybe it should stop.

A huge concern is self-protection at home or in public. If restrictive gun laws were passed the criminals will ignore them. That leaves everyone fully exposed when in public. 

The stats on the impact of concealed carry are all over the place. It's almost comical trying to research this. Groups with known bias have published conflicting data. This is one such article with a bias. Concealed Carry Facts and Fiction | Gun Facts and Fiction | USCCA (usconcealedcarry.com)

Wading thru the mess, the best I can find is that concealed carry holders stop somewhere in the range of 3 - 16% of crimes. The studies aren't done the same way, the stats are not complete (leaving out the weapon - gun, knife, bat, pepper spray, etc.) and then there is the inherent bias of some writers.